Talk:M4 Sherman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Ronson"

A note that might be useful: as I recall from a mis-spent model-building childhood Sherman tanks in the African campaign (at least) got nicknamed 'Ronsons' by the British because they were prone to burn furiously when hit. This suggests but need not automatically imply a weakness that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.198.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They had the same chance of burning as most German tanks, in fact iirc Tiger tanks had a greater chance of catching fire once hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Ronson nickname, the reason for fires, and the use of wet racks is already included in the article at the bottom of the Armor section. (Hohum ^@) 13:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

German tanks were powered by diesel, which has a much higher ignition temperature, whereas Shermans were powered by gasoline. This, combined with the very light armor on the Shermans, meant that if hit by German tank fire (even the lighter guns, say on the Panzer, as in the armored car with treads they invaded Poland with, rather than even the French Invasion tanks) they’d catch fire. The use of the word Ronson is a reference to the cigarette lighter; “Lights the first time, every time.” A. J. REDDSON

Rather than peddle myths, look at the stats contained in the article that come from an operational research paper. Panzer IV and VI had the same and better chance to catch fire as the Sherman once penetrated. Iirc there is also a myth surrounding the difference between diesel and gas engines, but both had the same chance of going boom.

It should also be pointed out that German tanks generally used gasoline engines and not diesel engines.

Please sign your posts. Also, you're wrong. The problem wasn't "once penetrated", although that's a clever diversion. The problem was that if you hit a Sherman centrally at any range with the KwK 40, by far the most commonly used German towed AT and tank gun at the time of the Normandy invasion, it literally "Lit the first time, every time". As in it took exactly one round from a Pak-40, Panzer IV or StuG-III to penetrate anywhere on the tank, and once penetrating it had a 2.5-3 in 4 chance of brewing up promptly. Compare this to the Panther which the 75mm couldn't penetrate at anything other than "miracle range" and the 76mm which required a steady, practiced hand to direct the shot through the mantlet rather than the glacis, which remained impenetrable frontally. Make more sense now why they treated it with such contempt? Just because you can build five times as many tanks and overwhelm them with mass-production doesn't make the criticisms invalid. 67.246.15.91 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Shermans could penetrate the side armour on panthers at standard combat ranges. It is why the mainly panther force at Arracourt was kicked around by the Sherman equipped 4th Armor Division in late September. The Germans certainly didn't have contempt for Allied tanks, it was consistently remarked by German crews after the war, as well as men like Guderian, that the most feared opponents the Germans faced were Tank Destroyers, then Tanks, Planes, then AT guns. Allied tanks may not have been as good as German tanks but when used smartly they were quite lethal, as the Germans found on multiple occasions from Le Deseret to the Battle of the Bulge. Wokelly (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

German tanks were not running on diesel, but gasoline. Reference e.g. Maybach HL230. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I though only Americans were that stupid. (Yes, I said it.) Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That was not stupidity on behalf of the Germans, but necessity. Germany has virtually no indigenous oil reserves, and had to rely on Coal liquefaction for most of its fuel production - which yielded gasoline, not diesel. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to reignite this debate... but just learned that the Germans also called Shermans 'Tommy Boilers'. There does seem to be a chauvinistic determination here to carol the praises of the Sherman. Does the article mention the claim that the Firefly's muzzle flash was so bright that it gave away the tank's location to an inordinate degree and could even temporary blind whoever was sighting the gun? The Sherman was clearly a superior tank - but I don't think it's generous or helpful to discount the opinion of wartime tank crews by accusing them merely of 'peddling myths'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.102 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Shermans used in North Africa by the British were facing the 88mm Flak gun that would easily penetrate a Sherman at a mile. If so, then the Sherman burned. That's why they called them 'Ronsons'. There's no cover in the desert area of much of the fighting so with the Shermans advancing over flat terrain the 88s had a field day.

Against the opposing German tanks such as the 50mm-armed Panzer III and the short-barrelled Panzer IV the Sherman gave a good account of itself. It only started to be out-gunned by the introduction of the long-barrelled 75mm Panzer IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sherman?

Gentlemen, in a german WIKI-article I found a picture of an armored vehicle. Any idea what type it is? Thanks, Hans Maag, Switzerland

Amerikanische Panzer rollen durch Avranches

--hmaag (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The ones in the distance are. The one in the foreground looks like an M3 Stuart, due to the flat looking front among other reasons so not the latter M5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the one in the foreground seems to have an open gun in place of the turret, a T18 75mm Howitzer Motor Carrier? --hmaag (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the one in foreground doesn't appear to have the 75, I'd guess the further one doesn't, either. In context, it seems more likely they're the same outfit. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the tanks, but units would have more than one type. The tank battalion would, iirc, have support tanks, command tanks, and a light tank recon unit. So there could be a mixture in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A hi-rez version of the photo is available here: link. One notes that the website labels the lot as Stuarts.

I don’t know if it is just the angle the tanks in the middle and background of the photo are moving at, but their turrets look huge compared to what I believe an M3/M5 should look like. I have tracked down two photos, one of the M3 and one of the M5: link and link. I would inclined to say they are Shermans, unless some M3/M5s had larger turrets I am unaware of?

The one in the foreground is deffo a stuart due to the wheel layout. On the hi rez version it looks like the chap has a turret hatch behind him so not a SP gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The vehicles are both M5A1 Stuarts (Stuart VI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote to Post–World War II

A hatnote to Post–World War II Sherman tanks should be added to the Post–World War II section of this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

there's a link under "Foreign use" further down the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What book is "Copp, pp. 399-406 "?

Can anyone give the book's full name?(talk) 19:08, 17 june 2012 (UTC)

Installed phones.

Maybe not all, but at least some M-4's had phones installed in the rear (presumably so that infantry could talk to the tank crew). Example: sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/408456_4722001761555_1146891136_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.199.107 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparable to the T-34?

I notice that in the introduction the Sherman is compared to the Soviet T-34. The article on the T-34 describes it as a truly revolutionary design. This article on the Sherman is at best mixed praise. Is it really accurate to compare the two?Tgiesler (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The T-34 may be revolutionary, but in combat engagements the M4 and the T34 would likely perform similarly. --99.107.241.102 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

File:M4A4 cutaway.svg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:M4A4 cutaway.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 19, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A cutaway of an M4A4 Sherman tank , the primary tank used by the United States and the other Western Allies in World War II. The second most heavily produced tank of the war, the Sherman continued as the workhorse for the US military into the 1950s.

In the Pacific theatre of the war, Sherman tanks proved superior to their Japanese counterparts, but in Europe they became outclassed by Germany's Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. Click on the image for an explanation of the labels.Diagram: Malyszkz

Doctrine Section

The doctrine section reads in a very confusing manner. It looks like someone tried to throw in British tank doctrine jargon where the U.S. Army never used it. There is zero evidence that the U.S. Army ever called the M4 a cruiser tank. This should be edited out of the article. Also, at the start of the doctrine section it talks about how the the role the U.S. Army saw the M4 playing. At the start of the paragraph it states it was not primarily used in a infantry support role, and not in the anti tank role primarily. It was to be used primarily as a rear eschelon raider. Later in the section it states it was used primarily as an infantry support vehicle. Reading the cited FM 100-5 it appears the M4 was a jack of all trades and was envisioned as a rear eschelon raider. However it was used in every role possible during the war. TL:DR Edit out the non U.S. Standard doctrinal jargon, and clean up the way the sections reads.132.3.65.81 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tried implementing the changes you suggested. I would also add that it would be useful to expand the section with how US doctrine changed during the war (which I assume it did). --Sus scrofa (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

M4 medium tank

Shouldn't this article be known as M4 medium tank? M4 medium tank is the formal name for the vehicle. Wasn't it the British who gave the m4 the name sherman? just curious...

Wikipedia is like scrabble: common usage. Most articles about countries are known by their commonly used (usually shorter) names, like United Kingdom instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 75.141.228.239 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You're both right. WP uses the Brit name because it's better known by more people, tho (strictly) wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

British official service names for US-built tanks were those of US Civil War generals; Stuart, Lee/Grant, and Sherman, with the notable exception of Chaffee who was a later US WW I general. The US later carried on this naming scheme, starting with the Pershing and later Patton, and so-on to the current Abrams.

... similarly, British names for US-built armoured cars were those of breeds of hound; Staghound, Boarhound, Deerhound, and Greyhound, as they were used for scouting.

British tanks since the Covenanter have mostly had names beginning with 'C'; Crusader, Churchill, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Comet, Centurion, Conqueror, Chieftain and the two later Challenger 1 and Challenger 2.

British self-propelled guns have all had names of ecclesiastical titles, Bishop, Deacon, Priest, Sexton, and Abbot.

... so there was actually a reason for the M4 being named 'Sherman' by the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

M103 heavy tank in the US armored vehicles of WWII list

Just noticed that the M103 is in the American armored fighting vehicles of WWII list. Why is this so? The tank wasn't developed until 1955 iirc, and fielded by 1957. That's a long way away from WWII, and I don't think it has any relation to any vehicle of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Žiga Auer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the armor wrong?

The listing in the table says 76mm maximum, but the early war M4 had 51mm armor@34 degrees, which is 91.2mm of effective armor from straight on, slightly inferior to the late war M4's 93.8mm of effective armor. I ask because the table's armor listing isn't cited.

The issue isn't "effective armor", it's the actual thicknes... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it is 76mm at it's thickest, the mantlet is 76mm thick iirc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.79.21 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where the 76mm figure comes from, nor which part of the tank it applies to. The mantlet of the Sherman was 89mm, to the best of my knowledge. 99.107.241.102 (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sherman Armor

The Sherman had maximum effective armor rate of 84mm, not 76mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of the "Mark IV Special" superiorty

The statement indicates:

The Panzer IV "Special" or "Mark IV Special" nicknamed by the British, was first employed in a major offensive during Operation Venezia in May 1942. Althought only available in small numbers, the early Ausf G was quickly recognised as especially dangerous and superior to the American or British opponent.

Page 21:

"From the first time it was used, the 7,5 cm KwK 40 (mounted on the Mark IV Special) tank gun with its higher armour-penetration power and accuracy that it was superior to all weapons that had previously been mounted on a Panzer. At ranges up to 1500 meters the armour-piercing shell penetrates the front of all the American and British tank types (including the "Pilot") that have been used in the African theatre war"

With a reasonable reading comprehension, the "superiority" leads to the long-barrelled gun as Andy Dingley recognized correctly against the arbitrarily edit warrings of LeuCeaMia.

Sincere regards, Benjamin (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead length.

Currently I would say the lead looks about 1-2 paragraphs too large. I think the fourth paragraph could be taken out/moved (well, it's not exactly doing any harm but it's less essential info for the lead to have I think) perhaps. Any thoughts? --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

user:FelixRosch has trimmed it to four sizeable paragraphs. There was a lot of material and though WP:Lede is a guideline not absolute policy exceptions are supposed to be few. There is a lot to be said on the Sherman, and it comes down to what can be left to the detail in the article, and what needs to stay in lede. Any thoughts by editors as to if the balance has been struck. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Section on gun penetration confusing?

Is it just me or are the third and fourth paragraphs in the section on Armament really poorly written and confusing? If I get some agreement I'd like to take a stab at cleaning them up. Plsuh (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

'lend lease' economic assistance to Soviet Union with respect to American steel production.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had announced a production program calling for 120,000 tanks for the Allied war effort, which would have created 61 armored divisions.[citation needed] Although the American industrial complex was not affected by enemy aerial bombing nor submarine warfare as was Japan, Germany and, to a lesser degree, Great Britain, an enormous amount of steel for tank production had been diverted to the construction of warships and other naval vessels.[20] Steel used in naval construction amounted to the equivalent of approximately 67,000 tanks; and consequently only about 53,500 tanks were produced during 1942 and 1943.[21]

On a Russian site dedicated to the history of Lend Lease I came across a statistic which stated that the US exported enough steel plate from Seattle and San Francisco to Vladivostok to build all T-34s produced from the beginning of 1942. Should this be included with US tank production? I ask this because the US was also exporting to the Soviet Union machine tools and locomotives at the same time. I.e. the US was exporting tank factories to Russia and supplying the materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.181.245 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, what is the original source cited on the website? Reliable sources are a must.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the most original source I can find on the web: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/documents/files/Soviet_Supply_Protocols.pdf

Sorry it's PDF. And then there's this which describes some of the 'non military economic assistance' that could get past the Japanese: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.181.245 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You can add a note about that, the source looks ok. Just cite it as State Department Publication 2759 so that is verifiable.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Zaloga's misquote

There's a misquote given in the section of the Gun Development. The given ref. #60 does not in the slightest support the statement in the article or that of the estimated British trials, which indicates it would penetrate the Panther's mantlet at 2,500 yards.

However, reviewing the book I couldn't find anything at pp. 132-135 (Chapter 4, The Future Sherman) which only issued the 76mm gun controversy. On the other hand, pp. 210-211 mentioned:

A number of Panthers were captured more or less intact, so American and British ordnance experts tried to discover its secrets. A captured Panther was set up in a field near Balleroy on July 10 and subjected to fire from a variety of American and British tank guns. A month later, on August 19, a more comprehensive test was conducted using several captured Panthers at an ordnance tank park near Isigny. The Panthers were put in a field and fired on by the whole gamut of Allied antitank weapons, including bazookas, 57mm antitank guns, Sherman 75mm guns, the U.S. 3-inch gun, and the British 17-pounder. The results were extremely discouraging; in most cases, the rounds simply bounced off the front armor of the Panther. It was quite clear that the British 17-pounder was by far the best tank killer in Allied service, but it could penetrate the Panther mantlet and lower bow plate only at close ranges and the glacis plate not at all, even from point-blank range at 200 yards. These results were obtained with standard 17-pounder rounds; the new discarding sabot round had somewhat better penetration but very erratic accuracy. The performance of the U.S. 76mm gun was disheartening, and it had poor all-around performance, unable to penetrate the Panther frontally except for the occasional lucky hit. The Isigny test included a special batch of the new T4 HVAP ammunition for the 76mm gun, which compared in performance to the standard British 17-pounder ammunition. The problem with HVAP was that it would never be available in large quantities, while the British 17-pounder ammunition was made of conventional alloys and therefore was more widely available.

There's a big leap of faith here. Any other thoughs? SunsetShimmers (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Doctrine

The section on doctrine is especially shabby. Many claims are either inadequately sourced or purely speculative (i.e. made-up). For example, I corrected the incorrect interpretation of 1941 Field manual, so that it no longer states that US doctrine relied upon tank destroyers for its anti-tank operations, which is a popular myth. The doctrine states that it relies on anti-tank guns, some of which, but not all, were mobile. The language is still misleading. The article currently suggests that tank destroyers were not only the primary but the exclusive means of combating enemy tanks. The 1941 field manual envisions the use of anti-tank guns, mobile or stowed, mines, obstacles, aviation, and tanks for anti-tank measures. I believe the doctrine section should be deleted entirely, since it does not really expound on the M4 Sherman. I will delete the section in a week unless I hear back from the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensiveneko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hold your horses please! Deleting a section requires wide consensus. In this case, I believe the doctrine section is important to the article. If we could fix the lack of sources and speculation it would be better than deleting it. Just for clarification, are you speaking of section 1.1 or 4.1? Green547 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that the paragraph quoted cites only the armored divisions, and not the independent tank battalions which were attached to the various infantry divisions. To that extent, the role is infantry support. However, the FMs for Armored Force such as 17-10 and 17-33, which apply to all tankers regardless of organisation, indicate that tanks which encountered enemy tanks in the course of their job (exploitation or infantry support) were expected to shoot at them.2601:644:8200:2035:E067:77E:F1D0:173D (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be external link modification

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Citations number of References 52.53.56 Link now has to be that, or change expired — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webstylejapan (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

'Ronson' nickname a myth

I just took a look at the Ronson Lighter page, and it says that Shermans were not called Ronsons during the war, and that it was a post-war myth. The 'Lights Every Time' Slogan did not enter use until the fifties. We should probably consider fixing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronson_(company)#Wartime_shift_in_production

Jessikitten (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A whole bunch of reliable sources disagree, while the assertion on the Ronson wikipedia page is unsourced. (Hohum ^@) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A bunch of crappy post facto coffee table books is no evidence for anything. Can you show a contemporary source for the nickname?

Personally I rather doubt it. There was a "Ronson" as a semi-official nickname, it was one of the (non-Sherman) Crocodile flamethrowers. The idea of a such a name being granted officially in a "positive" connotation at the same time as a nickname having appeared in such a negative way elsewhere is really stretching credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Steve Zaloga isn't a reliable source for tanks? Since when? So far, we have an unsourced assertion that it wasn't sometimes nicknamed the "Ronson", countered with actual sources which say it was. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. Contemporary sources would likely be WP:PRIMARY and be our own WP:OR. We tend to leave it to WP:SECONDARY sources to interpret them. (Hohum ^@) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it implausible that soldiers came up with this nickname, and I think the source is good enough.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A flamethrower vehicle being called 'Ronson' as a semi-official positive nickname, while a tank is also negatively nicknamed 'Ronson' because it is prone to catch afire. I don't see how this is stretching credibility at all. Centrepull (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The only reason the Sherman (at least the early variants) were prone to catch fire, was down to the ammunition stowage. In the early models of the vehicles, they lacked the safety system of wet stowage, and had ammunition kept in ready racks in the turret basket and the turret itself. After the British began installing wet stowage systems in the tanks (a move the US copied), the number of Sherman tanks brewing up due to a penetrating hit dropped considerably. Whatever the case, tying the name 'Ronson' to the Sherman is largely untrue. There is some suggestion that the name 'Tommy Cooker' may have been used in the early days, but again there's no direct data to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.231.46 (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can actually find examples of the Ronson advertisement from 1927.... best link I can find so far, http://tanksandafv.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-m4-sherman-ronson-lights-first.html, either way the Ronson Myth section should realistically be removed or heavily edited seeing it's incredibly hard to actually know what the truth is. Sources either state it is, or is not true.92.26.138.34 (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC) About the nickname Tommy Cooker http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1945/mar/13/demobilisation-and-re-employment#S5CV0409P0_19450313_HOC_434 a transcription from the british parliament "That is simply contrary to what every fighting soldier knows. It has been in all the newspapers that the German name for "the admirable Shermans," is the "Tommy Cooker." I will read part of an American sergeant's letter:" It is a primary source and it is very clear. 13 March 1945.

About the nickname Ronson the Chieftan had only suspicious and there are a good number of testimonies from veterans using the nickname, in the same video the chieftan make another mistakes about nomenclature so... the pre fix "general for example". https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/apparently-the-sherman-tank-was-a-good-tank.859948/page-14 post 261. Also in wikipedia forums, blogs and youtube videos are not valid sources...right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepicoro (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether the tank was named Ronson is still up for debate. What's not up for debate is the fact that the name was unwarranted. In any case, we should at least remove the unreliable newspaper source. I already have, and before anyone undoes the change again, discuss it here first. This should degenerate into an edit war. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop inserting opinions where there should be facts

Okay. There's a contention over this source.http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/m4-sherman-vs-german-panther/ The current page just says that the Panther and Tiger were outright better than the Sherman. I said that it was incorrect to post a subjective analysis of a weapon system, and instead just posted the facts of the tanks: the Panther and Tiger had thicker armor and bigger guns. The Shermans, on the other hand: "The Sherman also enjoyed a greater reliability than the Panther which was more prone to breakdowns and mechanical difficulties", "But the Sherman did have some advantages. Its thinner armor made it lighter and more maneuverable on solid ground", "Also, the Sherman’s turret had a much quicker rotation rate than the Panther’s, usually allowing American crews to get off the first shot in combat". These are all very important factors worth listing, and are actually irrefutable facts. This got reverted because "no original research". Would someone care to explain to me why actually posting the facts from the source gets an edit reverted in favor of excluding the facts and just saying "German tanks are the best"? Do I need to post actual combat records of Sherman vs Panther combat to show that this opinion is just that, an opinion, and not a fact that should be listed as one in an encyclopedia? --Nihlus1 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to insert details from an article about the Panther and Sherman within a general statement, which 1) does not cover a specific tank, but 2) which could mislead casual readers, as it leads to false impressions. However, the lede should be about the M4 Sherman, not in charge of the two alone. That's clearly not in the sense of an encyclopedia.

Currently as it stand: "In spite of being outclassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war, the M4 Sherman was cheaper to produce and available in greater numbers", the statement would even include later medium tanks like Panzer IV G-J, Stug III G etc. which surpassed the bulk of M4 Shermans fielded in firepower and punch. To limit the statement solely on those "Cats" is absurd, as they did not form the backbone of the German forces.

However, your lack of reading comprehension is very worrisome at the moment as even other edits reveal: 1 Giving the impression that the inferior evaluated Panzer III and short-barreled 75mm Panzer IV were the most produced tanks; which is honest, a fringe point and ridiculous to say the least. Xenon47 (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The text already there is what creates a false impression. First of all, the line cannot be excused as a general statement when its cited with one specific source. Secondly, nothing you've said refutes the point about why the page should state one tank is "superior" to another rather than listing what specifically is superior or inferior between the tanks; according to the source, the Sherman is inferior in gun and armor thickness, while being superior in reliability, performance on rough terrain, turret rotation, and speed. Those are the facts, and those are what should be listed. If anything, your attempt to justify this by saying "but the later Panzer IVs also had bigger guns" just proves by point.

Third, calling the Panzer IV or even Panther superior to the Sherman is wrong (also, the Stug III isn't even a tank). Even ignoring the poor form of just trying to label a tank as "superior" rather than simply stating its attributes. The book "Data on World War II Tank Engagements: Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions" by David C. Hardison (which is less a real history book written by the author, more of a collection of declassified documents from various other sources), contains many bits of hard data that contradict this urban legend. Among other things, it documents all engagements between Shermans and Panthers from those two divisions, and includes testing by Ballistic Research Laboratories which concludes that the absolute most important aspect of a tank v tank combat is who fires first... which the Sherman obviously excelled at. Extensive testing by the Ballistic Research Laboratories found that the Sherman was x3.6 more effective as a tank overall, not including such factors as reliability and cost--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether I claimed the Panzer IV or Panther as superior, nor did I tried to deemphasize the Shermans advantages in combat at any rate. That's all up in your head.

What you don't seem to understand, is that the lede should not be in charge of two tanks in comparison, but rather from an impartial view against the variety of German tanks it faced. However, the linked webpage also contradict with the Section to the Shermans mobility, which does apparently not support the claims either. It's better to remove it anyway.

I'm well aware of the collected data from the BRL and their assessment. Contrary to your opinon; which is btw. exaggerated and out of context - I would not take it at face value. While I'll agree that who saw and hit first, usually had a distinctive advantage over its adversary, it doesn't lead back necessarily to a better gun platform.

In Sherman vs Panther p.68-69, Zaloga states to the BRL data:

Of the incidents studied, defenders fired first 84 percent of the time. When defenders fired first, the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. When attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attackers. This see-first/hit-first advantages is a statistical correlation, not the cause of tactical success.

[...]

The study concluded that the evidence was not adequate to assess whether the technical advantage of specific tank types had any effect in the outcome of tank engagements. This was largely a factor of the small size of the sample and the inadequate data base.

[...]

During 29 engagements involving Shermans and Panthers, the Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data suggests that the Panther was 1.1 times more effective than the Sherman when fighting from the defense, while the Sherman had an 8.4 advantage against the Panther when fighting from defense. The overall record suggests that the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective than the Panther. This ratio was probably not typical of all Sherman-versus-Panther exchanges during the war and may also be due to inadequate data collection.

As you can see, the collected data is quite inadequate to draw any final conclusion as in these small samples of engagement against the Panther, the Sherman was rated 3.6 times effectively. That was because the Panther was in defense; probably even trying to escape encirclement and suffered thus 3,6 times more casualties than the attackers.

The Stug III is not a tank?! Don't be silly, it was used as tactical tank destroyer.

You better leave you full "fanboy" mode, and try to talk civilised. Thanks, Xenon47 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes you did. You're the one who said that the remark should stay because the Stug III and some other AFVs packed a bigger punch than (some models of the) Sherman. You specifically said that the remark should be included BECAUSE it includes Panzer IVs.

Yes, an impartial view. An impartial view on the tanks would not just label the German tanks as superior solely based on armor thickness and guns. An impartial view would simply note the different advantages. Unfortunately, the paragraph you're proposing is not impartial.

You're leaving vital information out of the book. Like the part where Zaloga specifically says that the Panther's superiority was a myth. That's pretty interesting actually, since it's starts literally right where you ended the quote.

"Nevertheless, the popular myths that Panthers enjoyed a 5-to-1 kill ratio against Shermans or that it took five Shermans to knock out a Panther have no basis at all in the historical records. The outcome of tank-versus-tank fighting was more often determined by tactical situation than technical situation."

Nope. The study found that tanks on the defense actually had the advantage. You're just trying to make up scenarios to justify that your assumptions aren't supported by the data. Regardless of Zaloga's opinion, a sample size of 98 is actually fairly relevant. Especially when you keep trying to push the idea that inferior tanks (compared to the Tiger) were objectively better than the Sherman, to the point that this objective encyclopedia must say that the Sherman was flat-out outclassed rather than just noting the differences between the tanks.

No, the Stug III is not a tank. It's an assault gun, which is specifically a different vehicle.--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the Panthers, Tigers, and Tiger IIs in the West were not facing the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions. They were facing the British and Canadians with their Shermans, initially around Caen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole German Mediums surpassed is so foolish it's painful to read. The source is unreliable. Plus surpassed is a too general word. In what way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRavenclaw (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

By God, looking through the article again reminded me why it's unreliable. The amount of myths presented is astonishing. The article is obviously written by someone who is completely ignorant to the subject. The M4 was prefered over the Pershing in Korea. The M4's tendency to catch fire was disproven recently. Mediocre, mass produced? That was the T-34, with's its terrible quality control until late '43. This is not a reliable source, people. It's one of the worst sources I've seen on WW2 tank articles. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The M4 was preferred in Korea over the M26 in a very specific situation in which the terrain was difficult and the enemy had no armor. Korea is extremely mountainous; the M26 was considered underpowered since it had the same Ford engine as the M4A3 yet weighed a lot more. The M4 became the preference after the NKPA's T-34-85s and SU-76s had dissappeared from the battlefield and the tank role was almost completely infantry support. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

47 degree hull

In the last few days I've removed a few bits of text that suggested the 47 degree hull originated with or is associated somehow with the M4A3E2 'jumbo' or with 76mm-armed tanks. It is not. The 47 degree hull entered manufacturing well before the 76mm gun turret (for example, http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a375w/m4a3_75w.html) on M4A2 and M4A3 75mm armed tanks. The purpose was to improve protection while allowing large hatches for the hull crew. The M4A3 75mm with the new hull was actually one of the most common US Army variants in service in the last year of the war. The M4A1 was the first to get the 76mm gun so only a very, very small number of large-hatch M4A1 75mm gun tanks were built. The late M4 75mm was built with the 47 degree composite hull and the M4 105mm was built with the all-welded 47 degree hull. The M4A4 had ceased production by the time the new hull was developed, so all M4A4 had the old 56 degree hull and small hatches. The M4A3 and M4A1 had 'wet' ammunition stowage, but the M4A2 75mm did not.

The 76mm gun turret came a bit later, and the M4A3E2 simply inherited this hull design.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable 1950 newspaper source

To give examples for why the source isn't reliable.

• "[the Shermans] caught fire so easily". No they didn't, or at least not much more than other tanks. The wiki article itself talks about it.

• "[The Centurion] owes much [the Panther] much in design". Centurion was in development in 1943, and the natural evolution of the British Cruiser design. The only thing that the Panther might have influenced about the Centurion was having a strongly sloping and thick front glacis, which was in turned inspired from the T-34, and even still, not a new or revolutionary concept.

• "[The Russians] have continued in the Easter Zone making the German "Tiger"". I don't even know what to say here. The Russians never produced Tigers for as far as I know, and I can't find any source that would state otherwise.

• "the Russians [...] produced the best tanks. The Germans came next. And at the bottom of the list were the Allies." The Russians were part of the Allies.

There are countless better sources out there. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Death Traps is also a controversial source that should be used with care, but I don't see it being cited anywhere in the article, so I'm not even sure why it's in the bibliography. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is not so good as a source. The author seems not to know or is deliberately omitting that there were no M4s in Korea in 1950, the US forces had only the M24 Chafee light tank. As for the Allies (I guess the Western Allies is meant here) making the worst tanks, he seems to have left out the Italians and the Japanese. Sus scrofa (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Actually there were M4A3E8's in Korea, they were in action in August with the 70th Armor Regiment. Just for clarity. Irondome (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This source

is only tangentially related to M4 and should not be used in the article.  K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Add: ""the Russians [...] produced the best tanks. The Germans came next. And at the bottom of the list were the Allies." —The Russians were part of the Allies." :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Have a read of this thesis https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1392912024&disposition=inline that I used to source a small but critical statement in the lead in the T-34 article. It is a comparison between the M4 and T-34, and discusses German armour in comparison with both models. It makes some very interesting points, especially in reliability and the differing logics behind the staggering production levels of both types. There may be something here we can use. Irondome (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Sus scrofa, it's as if you read my mind about the Italina, Japanese and Western Allies thing. I abstained from criticizing it too much though. Anyway, I'm glad everyone agrees that we should get rid of the source. Andy Dingley can't stop me now. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That thesis has errors on almost every page. Suggest it not be used as a source for thsi article. regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Does not follow

This does not make sense: The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.[14]

The M4 was, therefore, not originally intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite.''

The US Army had more tanks in independent GHQ tank battalions than in armored divisions. These tank battalions were specifically raised to provide tank support to Infantry Divisions. It was normal for every Infantry Division in the ETO to have at least one tank or TD battalion.

So it does not follow that simply because the role of the Armored Division was not to support Infantry that the medium tank was not intended to support Infantry. With 70 GHQ tank battalions (compared to about 48 within armored divisions) the medium tank was definitely seen as filling an Infantry support role, in addition to its other roles. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of low-quality original research going on with this page, on all sides of the "Ronson" debate. You're actually doing it too, though: it no more follows from the organization of GHQ tank battalions that the Sherman was an infantry tank than it follows from the organization of divisions that it was a cavalry tank. You also don't understand the actual development of the independent tank battalions; they were created as a concession to the Infantry branch; yes, and ultimately used as infantry support, yes; but Armor never actually wanted this mission, and sought to hoard the battalions as an armored reserve at the top level. Hence the name "GHQ" battalions!

The only acceptable sources for discussing the design and conception of the Sherman tank are sources actually about the design and conception of the Sherman tank. Field manuals for tank divisions don't count. Numerical comparisons of the number of battalions vs divisions don't count.

And given all the misinformation and rumor-mongering about the Sherman tank's supposed inferiority and "infantry support" role, you're gonna need to be careful about which sources within that category you actually use. There are a million "History Channel" level books out there that just repeat misconceived criticisms of the Sherman from other books in that genre. You need to find the ones by that have a detailed familiarity with actual documentation on the Sherman's design. 198.96.83.2 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly stick to discussing issues, not editors. You have no idea what I understand or don't understand, nor I you, and it is irrelevant anyway.

I'm glad we agree the content needs to be changed here.

With respect, I disagree about what can be used as a source for design influence. Design starts with doctrine. Having some understanding of the US Army's doctrine for armor (and TDs) is critical to understanding why the M4 was built the way it was.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Even that is a questionable statement. If I may quote General Barnes, the Chief of R&D for the US Army's Ordnance Branch in WW2 "It is not well understood that tactics are usually written around a particular weapon. Thus, field operations ordinarily do not generate ideas leading to new materiel. A new piece of equipment must first be produced, such as for example a machine gun, before the tactics can be devised for the exploitation of the capabilities of the weapon. For these reasons it is necessary for the Ordnance Department to take a strong lead over the using services in the development of new equipment and then to get the help of those using services in determining where the weapon best fits into battlefield operations." Now, I happen not to be in entire agreement with him, and I agree with you that tanks were as much to support infantry as anything else (Remember, Armored Force had barely come into existence, Infantry Branch which controlled tank development in the 1930s still had much sway), don't go exclusively into the FMs. The_chieftain 2601:644:8601:3420:D13:D3A8:B2F4:A6C7 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be equating 'doctrine' and 'tactics' which are not the same thing. Doctrine is a much higher-level concept. You're of course correct that detailed small unit tactics have to follow from weapon characteristics. The reason the weapon exists at all is often because doctrine calls for it. Adna Chaffee was calling for a medium tank with a 75mm gun in the mid-1930s. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Opening para

This statement is cited to a 1950 source, which appears to be focused on the Korean war, and is not an expert source on the relative strengths of Allied vs German tanks:

In spite of being surpassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war, the M4 Sherman proved to be very reliable, cheaper to produce and available in greater numbers.

• Bean, CEW. "Korea Has Spotlighted The Vital Role Of The Tank". Sydney Morning Herald, 17 Aug. 1950

References

Would there be any objections to removing the first part of the sentence, or otherwise rephrasing this sentence? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So what's the problem here? Of these four statements, which do you consider to be inaccurate? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"In spite of being surpassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war..." -- this is vague (surpassed how? according to what criteria?) and comes from what I would consider to be non RS for this evaluation. There are many ways for military technology to "surpass" another, including overall production, cost, reliability in the field, logistics and spare parts, etc, not just in the armour and the gun. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How about "In spite of having inferior guns and armor compared to German medium and heavy tanks late in the war..."--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Surpassed in every aspect - take your pick. Plenty of sources too (David Fletcher's two on the "Universal Tank" would be good). Although I have a certain fondness for this Korean-era newspaper report as its an interesting historical period and a viewpoint from outside the military. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Now I see this. Surpassed in every aspect? Really? You make me laugh. 150km final drives on the Panther. Penetrated from 1km for the Tiger. Obsolete by the end of the war for the Pz.IV. Surpassed in every aspect. We need a third party here. You are biased. Inferior guns and armor compared to heavies is a foolish statement. It should be compared to it's weight class. M4A3E8 was superior to the Pz.IV in every way. The Pz.IV stopped being a top tank after '44. Sources: Armored Champion and Armored Thunderbolt. And your fondness for a random newspaper article does not warren it to be kept. Your fondness means nothing. It's an interesting, but wrong viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRavenclaw (talk • contribs) 11:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're questioning the repeated Romanian removals [1], then is your issue with the statement " In spite of being surpassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war" or with " proved to be very reliable, cheaper to produce and available in greater numbers"? My impression is that your issue was with the first clause, but the IP's complaint was with the second. For myself, I think both of them are accurate and widely supported.

Of course the M4A3E8 was a much better tank than the PzKpfw IV. But it was also only a small fraction of the M4s built (a tenth? Half that if you only count the HV gun tanks). The M4A3E8 was also still an M4, thus only an upgun of the earlier 1942 design (much as the IV was), not a later and improved design throughout, like the Panther and Cromwell or Comet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was that IP. Forgot to log in. My issue is with the first statement. The first one is neither accurate (as it is too general) nor widely supported. First of all, the Germans didn't even have the term "medium". That was a US category. Second of all, the M4 was an infantry support tank, and you compare the vehicles based on their anti-tank capability, and the M4, while indeed expected to face other tanks, did that relatively rarely (the most fired ammo was WP). Plus you can't call it surpassed in "every way" then say it was more reliable and cheap. Sus scrofa's suggestion is far better, but once more only covers one variant of the M4. I say we remove it all together as it's confusing and overgeneralises.

And as to break down the rest of your statements. The M4A3E8 only had the 76mm M1 (I suppose that's what you refer to by HV) and it wasn't the only variant with the M1. So there were more M1 armed Shermans than there were M4A3E8s. And it's not ONLY an upgun. The new versions had wet stowage and HVSS, among others. The difference between the M4 and the M4A3 are pretty big. Improved design? New, not necessarily improved. The Panther was inferior to the Pz.IV in several areas, unlike the Comet in comparison to the Cromwell, which was superior in everything but max speed.

So the statement is simply erroneous. "Surpassed" is too general (definitely not in every way). "German medium" is not a thing. Once more, I suggest we remove this altogether as it serves only to confuse and/or misinform the reader. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would not go as far as "erroneous", but it's wording could certainly be improved. Most sources I've seen say that the US suffered in comparison to late-war German tanks in firepower and protection. "Surpassed" does not imply "in every way"; a football team can improve to "surpass" their rivals without having every one of their players be better in every way than all rival players. Generalizing is an aspect of summarizing -- the purpose of the lede. We should note the common perception that the Sherman could/should have been improved/replaced before 1945; it's a significant part of the modern Sherman legacy. I think it's a matter of wording. Perhaps we could specify "firepower and armor", and add "generally"? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't get this common perception that the Sherman should have been replaced. It was used long after the war, far longer than any of the German tanks it was supposedly surpassed by. It was even preferred over the Pershing in the later parts of the Korean War. The M4A3E8 was one of the best tanks of WW2, superior to the Panther in every way except armour and anti-tank firepower. Plus, the Sherman in general includes multiple variants, so saying that it was surpassed by German tanks would mean that all variants were. it's just overgeneralised. And we definitely need to get rid of that German medium BS. Heavies, perhaps, but the Pz.IV was inferior and the Panther I mentioned above.

I'm OK with mentioning armour and firepower, as it clears things up, but we still need to find a solution for that German medium term. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How about changing By 1944 and 1945, the M4 was inferior to German heavy tanks to By 1944 German heavy tanks had thicker armor and more powerful guns?Sus scrofa (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not just "tanks"? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the Pz.IV was still in use and it's also a tank and it's not true that the Pz.Iv had more armour or a more powerful gun. That's why. The thing is misinforming the reader. "In spite of being surpassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war," should be changed to "In spite of being surpassed by some German tanks in terms of armour and firepower late in the war,". It changes the least and gets rid of the dubious "medium" classification, esp since the Panther was kind of a medium, but kind of a heavy... the classification just doesn't work on German tanks. We'd still need a citation and I still argue that that newspaper is not a reliable source, but I'll start another section for it. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, I looked at the wrong part of the text, I was looking at a sentence at the bottom of the lede. Well, I for one support MaxRavenclaw's assertion that the 1950 article this is based on is not a good source; it's a newspaper article and fairly old at that, newer scholarship is preferred, if I know my Wikipedia correctly. There certainly was a concern that the M4 was inferior after the war, but I think events and scholarship has proven those concerns false.Sus scrofa (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose: "In spite of being surpassed by having less firepower and armor than some German medium and heavy tanks late in the war, the M4 Sherman proved to be very reliable, cheaper to produce and was available in greater numbers". And just remove the ref. These points are effectively sourced in the body. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

While the above suggestion is neutrally worded, I question comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank in this way in the lead. Why not save the comparisons and relative strengths and weaknesses for the article body? For the lead, I think it would be appropriate to say:

• "M4 Sherman proved to be very reliable, was relatively cheap to produce and available in great numbers. (remove the ref).

I put "relatively" in there, because I believe that the T-34 were cheaper to produce than Shermans. Please see:

• "Kursk, The Epic Armored Engagement": Video on YouTube, via the official channel of The National WWII Museum; session by the historians Robert Citino and Jonathan Parshall at the 2013 International Conference on WWII (Parshall speaks second).

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

After a bit more consideration, I came to realize that it's best we don't compare the Sherman at all with German tanks. Either just plain say that it was being surpassed in general in terms of armor and firepower or plain not mention it at all, like K.e.coffman said. As an interesting fact about tank prices, it's up for debate what was cheaper. The M4A3E8 was more expensive than, say, the Comet and the T-34, but the older Sherman models were cheaper. Plus, Soviet prices were difficult to compare, as the costs varied immersible from factory to factory and were affected by the controlled economy. But that's just a fun fact, I agree with the "relative" term. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately went with the no comparison option, as the M4 had multiple variants and such a basic comparison is impossible without over-generalization. Only the reliability and cost remained mostly the same throughout the variants. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree abt no comparison, the current version looks good: "The M4 Sherman proved to be very reliable, relatively cheap to produce and available in great numbers." K.e.coffman (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but, the Sherman often ended up in the role of fighting German heavy tanks. This is the main reason there's lingering grumbles about it needed a replacement. However, despite being "outclassed" by these heavy tanks, it did pretty well anyway, mostly due to the reasons stated in this sentence. I think the "unfair" comparison should still be included. Otherwise, we're ignoring a common belief (valid or not), and actually selling the "little tank that could" short.  :) --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is mentioned later, with better sources. Otherwise, "In spite of being surpassed by German medium and heavy tanks..." in the very first para sounds odd. Here it is:

• By 1944 and 1945, the M4 was inferior to German heavy tanks but was able to fight on with mutual support from numerical superiority and with support from growing numbers of fighter-bombers and artillery pieces.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sounds odd"? Then we fix it. The lede is supposed to summarize the body. Since this is a common (mis)perception of Sherman, it should be mentioned in the lede. We've agreed that "surpassed" is vague; we've moved pass that, as well as including German "medium" tanks. Adding "Despite having less firepower and armor than some German heavy tanks late in the war..." is technically accurate, reasonably specific, informative, and sourced. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the comparison is made in the 3rd para of the lead:

• By 1944 and 1945, the M4 was inferior to German heavy tanks but was able to fight on with mutual support from numerical superiority and with support from growing numbers of fighter-bombers and artillery pieces.

References

I believe it's an appropriate placement and provides interesting info on how the Sherman was able to handle German heavy tanks. Everybody seems in an agreement on that placement / wording, as I've not seen this issue raised. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Too much emphasis solely on "heavy tanks". Encounters against Tiger's or other heavies, were seldom and on a small scale at Normandy, and can probably be counted on one hand. More in common were the medium tanks, e.g. Panzer IV and Panther tanks. The Panzer IV was more than an even match, and was still regarded as "an excellent tank on the 1944 battlefield" (Zaloga). However, I would leave as it stands, don't make any comparison at all, these sorts of arguments are destined to be contested without a definite conclusion for years to come. 88.202.231.15 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The German opposition around Caen consisted of seven panzer divisions, mostly Waffen SS ones, including the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, the 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, etc. The non-SS panzer division was the Panzer Lehr, made up from instructors from the tank training schools.

The above included: (among others);

101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion - 45 x Tiger I

102nd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion - 45 x Tiger I

503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion - 45 x Tiger II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

True, British and Canadian Sherman crews in Normandy met Tigers quite often and Panthers all the time, since every 1944 panzer division was supposed to have one battalion of 76 Panthers and another of 76 Mark IVs -- though three of the ten panzer divisions in Normandy (21st, 116th and 10th-SS) never got any Panthers due to production problems caused by Allied bombing and the sheer complication of the design, and the remaining divisions were usually understrength. The Germans prioritised the Anglo-Canadian front at all times except in the Ardennes, so the Americans had relatively little experience of the panzers.

The Sherman was inferior in frontal armour to all German types. See Major L.F. Ellis, Victory in the West Vol. I, HMSO 1962, Appendix IV, pp.548-9: Sherman 76mm, Mark IV 80mm, Panther 100mm, Tiger I 100mm, Tiger II 180mm.

The Sherman was superior to most German tanks in side armour: Sherman 51mm, Mark IV 30mm, Panther 45mm, Tiger I 80mm, Tiger II 80mm.

The Sherman with the 75mm gun was inferior in armour penetration at 30 degrees angle of attack to all German types: Sherman 75 APCBC (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) 74mm at 100yd (gun fails point blank against all German tanks front-on), 68mm at 500yd, 60mm at 1,000yd, 47mm at 2,000yd; Mark IV 75mm KwK 40 APCBC 99mm at 100yd, 92mm at 500yd, 84mm at 1,000yd, 66mm at 2,000yd; Panther 75mm KwK 42 APCBC 138mm at 100yd, 128mm at 500yd, 118mm at 1,000yd, 100mm at 2,000yd; Tiger I 88mm KwK 36 APCBC 120mm at 100yd, 112mm at 500yd, 102mm at 1,000yd, 88mm at 2,000yd; Tiger II 88mm KwK 43 APCBC 202mm at 100yd, 187mm at 500yd, 168mm at 1,000yd, 137mm at 2,000yd.

The Sherman with the US 76mm gun and APC ammunition, which began to be deployed in Normandy, was superior in armour penetration to the Mark IV, but not the Panther, Tiger I or Tiger II: 109mm at 100yd, 99mm at 500yd, 89mm at 1,000yd, 73mm at 2,000yd. (Gun kills Mark IV front-on out to 1,000yd and fails point blank only against Tiger II or, due to the sloped glacis, Panther.)

The Sherman Firefly with the British 17-pounder gun and APCBC ammunition (at an establishment of one Firefly per four-tank troop in every British Sherman unit in Normandy) was superior in armour penetration to every enemy tank except Tiger II: 149mm at 100yd (gun fails point blank only against Tiger II front-on), 140mm at 500yd, 130mm at 1,000yd, 111mm at 2,000yd (gun kills Tiger I front-on).

The Sherman had, undeniably, in the view of the men who had to crew it, an 'evil reputation for brewing up or even exploding within a matter of seconds when penetrated' (John Sandars, The Sherman Tank in British Service, Osprey, London, 1982, p.29, and countless other sources attesting to the same thing). It made up for this with quite good mobility and agility and a rapid turret traverse about twice the rate of any panzer's (though it couldn't pivot on the spot and it was prone to sink in wet ground), and excellent serviceability. It could go 3,000 miles one set of tracks compared to a Panther's 600 miles and it rarely broke down, where the German tanks broke down all the time. It was always available, in numbers. There were always more Allied Shermans around than the enemy could conveniently destroy, so the Allies always won, eventually. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits of Jan 20 2017 - english to metric

Are the english - to - metric edits actual measurements or derived? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M4 Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?_IXSPFX_=templates%2Fsummary%2Ftvod%2Fb&_IXFPFX_=templates%2Ffull%2Ftvod%2Ft&_IXACTION_=summary&_IXMENU_=Vehicles&%3Amus_administration_name=VEH&%3Amus_text_location=BOVTM&B%2A%20in%20mus_current_location_building%20index%20mus_text_location=.&%24%20with%20mus_catalogue%20and%20%28B%2A%20in%20mus_current_location_building%20index%20mus_text_location%29=.&_IXtext=M4A1%20Tank%20Medium
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040223060203/http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm to http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed broken URLs. Pennsy22 (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

I was surprised coming back to this article after a long time away to see that the infobox image is a relatively atypical for Sherman 105mm gun variant. Is there a) a better choice of variant for the infobox b) an image that faces into the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 11:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Armor effectiveness at range verses the 7.5cm KWK 40 L/48

The 3rd paragraph of the "Armor" section has this line.

The KwK 40 7.5 cm L/48 tank gun that armed late war versions of the Panzer IV could penetrate a Sherman's armor up to a range of 1,370–1,500 meters, and larger guns could penetrate past 2,000 meters (2,200 yd).

The wording of "up to a range of 1,370 - 1,500 meters." is rather confusing to me. If it could penetrate up to 1,500m, why mention the 1,370m? I don't currently own the source linked as it may actually specify the 2 numbers in that manner. However I feel it would be a lot more understandable if a single accurate number was used. Unless there is a specific reason for the 2 numbers. If there is a specific reason for it, the text should probably be updated to include that reason. I have no problem with the 2000m claim. Just left it because I copied the whole line. Linkxsc (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's highly dependent on the ammunition type, just as with any gun. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes the numbers do look like they could be about right to the late Panzer 4's APCBC, and APCR rounds, however nothing is given in the text to clarify this to the reader.Linkxsc (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that this kind of statement ( "Tank X could be knocked out by gun Y at such-and-such range") is common in wikipedia and is inherently misleading. Gun performance can only be specified when the ammunition type is also specified. Ammunition type can make a huge difference.

I understand that in wikipedia we want some kind of easy-to-understand, nontechnical way of approaching this information. But leaving out the ammunition type and then been overly precise with range isn't, perhaps, the best combination of information ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The figures possibly refer to the gun's performance against the thickest armour on a Sherman, e.g. the glacis plate and turret mantlet. Fired against parts of the Sherman that were less heavily-armoured, e.g., the sponson sides, the rear plate, would increase the range the Panzer IV's gun was effective at.

The thickest tank armour is usually concentrated on the front-facing parts of a vehicle, as that is usually the side facing the enemy. The sides and rear are usually less-heavily armoured, due to weight constraints. Thus a gun that will not penetrate the front of an enemy vehicle may well still prove useful provided it can be brought to bear against the side or rear of the vehicle. Unfortunately needing to do this may result in your own losses due to the delay while waiting for an opportunity to fire, during which the enemy vehicle may well knock out two or three of your own tanks using his better gun. It was for this reason the British developed and used the Sherman Firefly as it eliminated this delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Foreign Users

Does anyone know if the People's Republic of China East Germany, and West Germany get any M4s?2601:245:C101:6BCC:9C12:2C88:8320:887F (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Tank ID?

Sherman M4A2 ve Vídni 1945, claimed to be Berlin in 1945

Can anyone identify this? It's used on Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#Combat_performance. Looks like an M4A2 in Soviet markings (so a diesel), with the 76mm. Which would make it an M4A2(76). But unusually it's still on VVSS suspension with the older tracks. So not the better-known M4A2(76)W HVSS. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why unusual, Fisher built 1594 of the M4A2(76)W in 1944? I assume most of them were delivered to Soviet Union. --Denniss (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

But it's not an M4A2(76)W (the W is for "wide tracks with HVSS"). It's an M4A2(76)not-a-W Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• FYI: @Radiphus: Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wet stowage --Denniss (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, but still, what's an M4A2 doing with both the 76mm and still VVSS? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Majority of Soviet M4A2(76)W were VVSS, from early/spring 1945 they must have received several hundred HVSS. --Denniss (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Grand Blanc Metal Center to M4 Sherman, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Second or third most popular tank?

I added a source that says it is the second. However, looking at the T34 and another Soviet tank article today, they could be numbers 1 and 2. We might need to correct or clarify. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. Just asking a question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ford GAA engine. 450 or 500 hp?

So this article says the Ford GAA engine has 450 hp. But when I clicked on the link the other article says 500 hp. @_@ So which is correct? Wolcott (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Marshall not adequately identified

In the tank destroyer doctrine section, there's a sentence that reads "Marshall then summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as possible." It's the first mention of "Marshall" in the article. It seems that clearer identification should be made. Based on what I read at M26_Pershing#Delayed production, I presume that "Marshall" refers to General George Marshall, but I leave it to someone familiar with the subject matter to verify make the appropriate correction.

2CanToo (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ronson" nickname

To my knowledge, the Sherman never was given the nickname of "Ronson", as the "lights first, every time" slogan wasn't created until after WWII. Am I mistaken? Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Look at the talk page archives. This seems to spring from a number of coffee table books in the '70s, and a couple of films in the '60s. As you note, "Ronson" is plausible, but "lights every time" isn't. There's also the official, and widely recorded, nickname of 'Ronson' for the first British vehicle-mounted flamethrower of WWII (soon replaced, as it had too short a range).

If WP followed its strict policies, 'Ronson' wouldn't appear here (if anyone has a 1942 source for it, then we've been waiting a long time for it). But it's an article of faith that it's correct, and now it's unassailable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately, the mobile version of WP doesn't make it very easy to find archives. Regardless, I see this conversation has happened many times, so I'll stop beating this horse's corpse. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 01:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I can at least provide a citation for the note. Armor historian Nick Moran discusses this point in his Myths of American Armor seminar from 2015, cited already on the page as citation 81. --174.20.82.28 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reticle ?

Please link or explain this word. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:903E:A706:6152:1DC6 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It was misspelt. reticle are the sighting or graduation lines in a gunsight or binoculars. I have linked it in article. I hope that helps. Simon Adler (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Was it inadequate or good?

I've heard both sides of the argument, however both have been heavily biased, and made by asshats who can't tell the difference between a Cloud and the sky, so here's the age old discussion, was it really bad? Please not, UNBIASED awnsers please, God I've heard enough "P51 was the best plane" type of guys and Wehraboos to write a book of mockery towards them SCP 1174 (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It may not of been a technical masterpiece, but it accomplished what it was supposed to do. It was inferior to many German tanks such as the Tiger and Panther, but "y made up for qualitative inferiority. Wandavianempire (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In 1942 North Africa the Sherman was an excellent tank, by 1944 in Normandy it was woefully under-gunned and under-armoured against much of the opposition it faced. However against the Japanese tanks and anti-tank guns in the Pacific theatre it remained excellent throughout the war, as compared to the opposition it faced.

... and "quantitative superiority" is all very well as long as you don't happen to be the one in a Sherman in open country facing a German tank such as a Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger I or Tiger II, that can knock you out at a thousand yards while you can only hope to knock him out at ranges under 500 yards. Such a factor is however of less importance in built-up areas or mountainous or jungle terrain where there is cover that one can use for concealment until one can get within range to use one's own gun.

The only really valid criticism of the Sherman is that it (or at least some Shermans) should have received the 76 mm gun earlier to enable it to fight on more even terms with the opposition mentioned above that the Germans were likely to field against what was to be the forthcoming Allied invasion of Europe. As it was, the standard Sherman went into action in Normandy against the most formidable tanks in the world, armed with a gun based on a French design from 1897. I believe some 76 mm-armed Shermans had been delivered to the UK before D-Day but the US chose not to use them for the invasion.

Blamazon (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Short answer: The Sherman is an excellent medium tank. Especially the upgraded versions. Long answer: The first thing to clear up is the myth about tigers, panthers and Shermans. First, the Sherman is a medium tank while the tiger is a heavy tank. Possibly the best tank of ww2. The Sherman was not designed to go against tigers and it rarely did. German heavy tanks were rare throughout the war. Also Shermans did their best to avoid german heavy tanks, not fight them.

1. Production. The Sherman was very easy to produce, partly due to the fact that America had built the Chrysler tank factory to aid in fast and simple tank production. On the other side of the coin, the tiger was a behemoth that needed an unbelievable amount of steel. You could make 45 field guns with the steel needed to make one tiger. As result, around 50,000 Shermans were built in WWII, while 1,357 tigers were ever built. So the Sherman wins at production.

2. Armor. This is a debatable issue. The early Shermans thicker armor than the panzer 4, but the Sherman had many types of armor. Late-war Shermans that had welded armor attach more plates if they wanted. They could also strap timber or logs to sides of the tank to prtect against HE rounds. Sandbags could be added to protect the commander to allow him to survey the battlefield without "buttoning up". But this armor was still thin compared to the tiger, and could still be pierced. In my opinion, the Sherman's armor is good as medium tank armor.

3. Tracks. This factor isn't very important. But it is a less-known fact that the Sherman had rubber tracks and the tiger did not. Rubber tracks assist in the traversing of all terrain and also do less damage to roads than steel tracks. They also provide much more traction than steel tracks.

4. Main Guns. It's clear that the german tiger wins at this with its 88 gun. But there is more to it than that. The Sherman had two common guns, 75 and 76 mm. The 75 was much better against infantry because its HE rounds produced almost 1000 pieces of fatal shrapnel, while the 76 mm had about 560 pieces per round. This lead to tank crews keeping their 75 mm guns even when upgrades were available, because they rarely had situations that required a 76 mm gun. Against other tanks, the 76 mm was much better. A Sherman with a 76 mm gun makes the trade-off of now being more effective as a tank destroyer and less as an infantry support tank. And while the 76 mm still had a hard time competing against the Tiger, it was still far better against light and medium tanks than the 75 mm was. Bottom line: If you want to prepared for anything, the 76 mm is enough. If you want what is best for your typical assignment, the 75 mm is the clear choice.

5. Reliability. Given the accounts and reports of the Sherman, it was very reliable tank. For instance, the Sherman has multiple engines. If one fails, it can just detach it and use the other engines. If a track is thrown, it can can disconnected from itself easily and ratcheted back into place. If a support wheel breaks, it can locked upward, until a replacement can be used. The german tiger on the other hand, had many problems. For one thing, spare parts and new tanks were more rare for the germans as the war dragged on. One heavy tank battalion never even recieved a full set of 45 tigers. The tiger also had internal problems. Because of its track design, reattaching a thrown track was more difficult than on a Sherman. The wheels also tended to lock up in cold temperatures due to their design. The Tiger's overlapping wheels also made it harder to repair themselves because many had to be removed to assess problems at the back. The panther had problems as well. One very common problem was that an the final drive part(the thing that connects the engine to the things that are supposed to turn) had a habit of breaking. The Sherman wins at reliability.

6. Myths. The main reason that the Sherman is portrayed as poor tank is because it is compared to tanks that it it was never designed to compete against. The Sherman was originally a medium infantry support tank. The Tiger was a heavy break-through tank. It is unfair to compare these two tanks to each other.

In my opinion, the Sherman is an excellent medium tank with a wide range of uses(flame tank, amphibious tank, tank destroyer, infantry support tank, etc...) and exceeds at the role it was meant for.

Does this answer your question?Blamazon (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not what the quote says.

The "Doctrine" section quotes a Field Manual as:

 "As the United States approached entry into World War II, armored employment was doctrinally governed by Field Manual 100–5, Operations (published May 1941, the month following selection of the M4 tank's final design). That field manual stated:

   The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.[18]

The M4 was, therefore, not originally intended primarily as an infantry support tank. It placed tanks in the "striking echelon" of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the "support echelon", without directing that tanks should only seek to attack other tanks, thus leaving target selection up to the field commander based on what types of units were available to him to attack."

The article's interpretation suggests that the tanks are used as armored spearheads for assault. It is right in suggesting that they were not intended primarily to engage in other tanks, but the quote above says nothing about being used as an armored spearhead. It says primary role is offensive operations against hostile rear areas. That has little do do with spearhead assaults, whatever the intended targets. In US Army doctrine a breakthrough was to be achieved by infantry supported by tanks and artillery as fire support to eliminated MG nests and other strongpoints. Once the breakthrough was accomplished, the fast-moving tanks were supposed to strike deep into the rear and roll up the enemy line, attacking troop and truck columns, artillery parks, ammo dumps and whatever targets offered, and using their great mobility to strike deep before any enemy armor could be brought up to counterattack. If and when the enemy armor did, it was mostly expected to be drawn into a fire trap and neutralized by AT guns and TD units. The M4 was mostly meant to be a "cruiser" tank in British parlance, but also capable of acting as fire support in an assault. You are correct that it was never meant primarily as a tank-on-tank combat machine, although they intended it to be capable of defending itself. I don't see why you bother quoting the Field Manual if you are going to totally ignore the explicit reference to 'hostile rear areas'.

Idumea47b (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I read the field manual, and found nothing like the quotes you have listed here. What page and number did you find this quote?

Second, are you sure this is even a good source to support the Sherman's original purpose? The first operation the US underwent was Torch, nov 8 1942. Primarily with Stuart light tanks and gun motor carriages. So I think that field manual might be too outdated for this considering America did not have any WWII combat experience when the manual was made. A better source of information would include examples of tanks, vehicles and soldiers the Sherman was designed to fight. For instance, the panther was designed to counter T-34s.

Third, I think the logistics of the Sherman are more important than its firepower or armor. The Sherman was made for mass-production and was widely used in WWII by several countries. And was(originally) a good medium infantry-support tank. But for me, deciding its original purpose comes down to the design of the original model, and less what the designers had in mind. Especially for the Sherman because it had many variants types throughout the war.

To me, the Sherman's original design was an infantry-support tank. This is illustrated by the gun it first carried. The 75mm gun is listed in ballistics reports as being on the high end of effective american HE rounds fired from American tank guns. The 75mm produces almost 1000 pieces of lethal shrapnel from a single HE round. This makes it very effective against buildings, fortifications, field guns and gun crews, infantry, and vehicles.(United States. (1948). Ballistic data performance of ammunition, 1948. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.) This report also lists that the 90mm(used by the Pershing) and 76mm(used by M4A3E8) had much less lethal shrapnel per HE rounds than the 75mm. This means that given the options, America chose a gun that is highly suited to the role of infantry-support for a WWII tank.

Fourth, it is important to keep in mind that resources and logistics was never a problem for America. This allows for larger tanks operations and more coordination and combat-readiness. Germany on the other hand, faced constant logistical issues that only got worse. For tank units, spare parts were in short supply, ammunition was wasn't always available, and replacement tanks were often not a possibility. The fact that American tanks almost never had these problems influenced the design of the Sherman. This is probably related to the fact that 60,000 shermans were built and 1,347 Tigers were built. Blamazon (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)